Mohd. Yamin, J.
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the State and leave to appeal was granted on 28-7-80. Before proceeding with the case I may narrate the facts as follows.
On 5-1-79 at about 12.30 A.M. Mst. Chothi along with her husband went to police station and reported that she had gone to collect fodder at about 5.00 P.M. When she was going to the field of Hemji, accused Nahar Singh and Chell Singh met her in the way. Nahar Singh caught hold of her and felled her on the ground. She made hue and cry but this accused pressed her and started sexual intercourse with her. Her mouth was gagged. She could not make further hue and cry. It was Nahar Singh who covered both of them with a cloth belonging to him. After rape was committed by Nahar Singh it was Chell Singh who also committed the same act with her. Dhanna Kumhar had seen the accused persons committing this nefarious act and therefore, both the accused respondents ran away. She suffered injuries on her cheek. She thereafter went weeping to her husband and narrated the story. Hemta and Gena also reached there whom story was narrated and then the matter was reported to the police. The case under Section 376, I.P.C. was registered. During investigation 'ghaghara' of Mst Chothi was seized vide Ex. P-6. Site was inspected and plan Ex. P-4 was prepared. Mst. Chothi. was medically examined. Nahar Singh was also medically examined and after investigation challan was submitted before the concerned Magistrate who committed the accused to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirohi. On 17-8-79 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 376, I.P.C. against the both the respondents who denied their indictment and claimed trial. Thereupon prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused respondents were recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. They produced D.W. 1 Gulab Singh and D. W. 2 Narpat Singh in their defence. After hearing both the parties the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Shri Matadeen Gupta acquitted the accused respondents vide his judgment dated 15-2-80. It is against this judgment that State has preferred this appeal.
2. I have heard learned. P.P. as well as learned counsel for the accused respondents and have gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel has cited Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan; (1991) 1 SCC 166 : 1990 Cri LJ 2276 wherein it has been observed that interference by this Court in judgment acquittal by the trial Court is called for in case of perversity or misreading of evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents also cited Deenath v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 674 : 1980 Cri LJ 921) wherein it has been observed that if the trial Court's view is reasonably possible. High Court should not reverse the order of the acquittal merely on the ground that a different view of evidence was possible. Learned P. P. agrees with these propositions of law but has relied on AIR 1996 SC 1393 : 1996 Cri LJ 1728 State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh and has submitted that the testimony of prosecutrix should be accepted. He submitted that in view of this citation testimony of the prosecutrix is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which necessitated looking for corroboration of her statement, this Court should find on difficulty to act on the testimony of victim of sexual assault alone to convict the accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed in this citation that seeking corroboration of her statement before relying upon the same, as a rule, in such cases amounts to adding insult to injury. So what I have to see in this case is if the learned Sessions Judge was right in not relying upon the statement of Smt. Chothi who is prime witness of the prosecution
3. P.W.-5 Mst. Chothi was examined on 21-11 -80 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge before whom she stated that her husband had sent her to collect fodder from the field and when she was going to the field she was caught by both the accused respondents who felled heron the ground and committed rape with her. According to her statement it was Nahar Singh who first did the nefarious act and thereafter Chell Singh performed the same Act. According to her Dhanna her uncle-in-law had come over there whom the accused respondents saw and ran away. She exaggerated even in exarnination-in-chief by saying that she Weeded per vagina at the time when-the sexual act was committed because she was having menses. She also stated that her uncle-in-law Dhanna had also come and saw the occurence. She admitted that she was examined by Dr. S. P. Purohit. P.W. 1 Dr. S. P. Purohit examined her on 5-11-79 and found that her vagina was congested and there was no visible injury on it. He stated that sexual intercourse was performed on Mst. Chothi 'about 24 hours before examination. She was having injuries on her cheeks but he admitted that there was no mark of violence on the back of Mst. Chothi. There were no injuries on chest, nipples or any other part of the body of Mst. Chothi. He admitted that if there was a cheek bite by teeth on the checks the injuries should be circular but Mst. Chothi was not having such injuries on her cheeks. Instead injuries of cheeks of Chothi were in bunch. He admitted that congestion of vagina may be due to any other reason but not because of intercourse. He admitted that lady was having menses at the time of examination and therefore, his statement that she was bleeding per vagina was correct as it was natural process. So I am of the view that report of the medical officer is of no help to the prosecution. Of course, as per the observations in State of Punjab v. Gurmeet 1996 Cri LJ 1728 (supra) corroboration in every case is not necessary but statement of the prosecutrix should be such which may inspire confidence.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that statement of Mst. Chothi does not inspire confidence and that she is not corroborated by those witnesses who have been named in the F.I.R. I find from the statement of Mst. Chothi that she was a married lady and had given birth to four children. In the cross-examination she has stated that the accused respondents had not come from the opposite direction but had come from her back. It was Nahar Singh who first slapped on her cheeks twice and thrice and thereafter dragged her to a distance of about 50 paces. She has gone to the extent of saying that when Dhanna came, it was Nahar Singh who was performing the sexual intercourse with her. She further stated that as soon as Dhanna came and made hue and cry both the accused respondents ran away from the place of occurrence. It means that other, accused respondent could not have performed the sexual intercourse with her. She went to the extent of saying that her blouse was torn and she suffered injuries on her breasts but suprisingly neither the blouse was seized nor she suffered any injuries on her breast as per the statement of P. W.-1 Dr. S. P. Purohit. She stated that when she was raped she bleeded per vagina. She went to the hospital next day where Dr. S. P. Purohit examined her and found that she was under going period of menses and, therefore, she bleeded but suprisingly the witness says that when she was examined by Dr. S. P. Purohit she was not in menses. She cannot be believed as she wants to implicate the respondents by hook or crook. There is no reason why Dr. Purohit would write that Mst. Chothi was in menses during those days.
5. She has further stated that her 'ghaghra' was stained with spots of blood at the time of occurrence. The 'ghaghra' was sent to the chemical examination and its report Ex. P-17 is available on record. Blood was detected on it and was sent forserological examination. Serologist's report Ex. P-18 mentions that the blood group of the stains on the 'ghaghara' could not be determined because the result of test was inconclusive. The report of examination of 'ghaghara' which is Ex. P-17 also mentions that human semen was detected on it but there is no evidence to connect the respondents on its basis. It is a fact that Mst. Chothi was a married lady and she was examined by Dr. Purohit after a lapse of overnight when she stayed with her husband in. house. Therefore the presence of semen spots on 'ghaghara' suggests that her husband might have committed intercourse with her and thereafter she was examined by Dr. Purphit. Stains of bloods on 'ghaghara' were of blood of menses.
6. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge was right in not relying upon the statement of Smt. Chothi because it is an admitted fact that the parties were having enimical terms for last ten or twelve years. There was a field named as Lohaniwala about which the parties had a quarrel and, therefore, in these circumstances the respondents might have been booked falsely.
7. The case of the prosecution is that there were certain eye-witnesses to the occurrence. When the prosecution itself brings its case making certain persons as eye witnesses, I have to examine their statements and to see if they have corroborated the case of the prosecution. P.W:-3 Hema Ram has stated that it was Soma who told that the accused respondents had committed rape with his wife. He is not an eye witness. But he admitted that he was having enimical terms with the respondents as a case under Section 107 I.P.C. was initiated against respondents by him before the learned S.D.M. where he had given statement. P.W.-7 Dhanna, the so called eye-witness, was examined and he has stated that he was going to look after his field and as soon as he reached near the river he found that Chell Singh was committing rape with Mst. Chothi. But Must. Chothi has stated that it was Nahar Singh who was lying on her at that time. Dhanna has stated that Nahar Singh was standing and his face was towards the village so in view of this material contradiction neither he nor prosecutrix can be believed, specially when the fact is that parties are after the blood of each other. It appears that the husband of Mst. Chothi has used Mst. Chothi in order to involve accused respondents. Dhanna has admitted that there was a previous litigation between the parties and he was suggested that his brother Moti was convicted by Gulab Singh who was a relation of the accused respondents. So the relations of the parties were definitely enimical and in the circumstances the learned Sessions Judge was right in not believing Mst. Chothi. Gena P.W.-8 was declared hostile but has stated that Mst. Chothi had come to her husband gay and happy and he did not see her complaining to her husband that respondents had committed rape with her. Similarly P.W.-9 Hemata has not supported the case of the prosecution. In my view when from the evidence, the case of the prosecution is not proved the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is right in acquitting the accused respondents.
8. Consequently, there is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.